On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 08:08 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote at 2008-8-22 16:45 -0400:
> > ...
> >I recall a pre-Zope (for me, 10 years ago) rule of thumb that text
> >indexing imposed an order of magnitude of overhead on the actual corpus,
> >with improvements possible only via batching or post-processing /
> >compresstion (incremental indexing is worst-case).
> And this is especially true for indexes supporting a term frequency
> based ranking and which uses "IISet" at places where "IITreeSet" were
> more appropriate.
> With "TextIndexNG3", one can get rid of the overhead of
> term frequency based ranking (in case one does not need it)
> Using "AdvancedQuery" (and parsing the text subqueries oneself),
> one can use a "Managable SimpleTextIndex" which
> tries very hard to be as efficient as possible for large data sets
> (and does not support term frequency based ranking).
Thanks for the feedback. I'll re-run the tests without any text indexes,
as well as run it with other implementations such as TextIndexNG3 and
SimpleTextIndex and compare the results.
Upfront Systems http://www.upfrontsystems.co.za
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org